oil and gas lobbyhttp://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/4434/all
enHeavy is the Head That Wears the Crown: Tar Sands Expansion May Violate Crown's Legal Obligation to First Nationshttp://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/09/federal-review-panel-refuses-consider-first-nations-constitutional-rights-shell-jackpine-hearing-violates-duty
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/tar%20sands.jpeg?itok=A0J5p4aM" width="200" height="133" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Today the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (<span class="caps">ACFN</span>) will argue in the Alberta Court of Appeal that <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/01/first-nation-challenge-shell-canada-s-jackpine-mine-expansion-citing-constitutional-treaty-rights">Shell Canada’s proposed Jackpine Mine expansion </a>is in violation of their Constitutional rights and represents a failure on behalf of the federal government to uphold their legal duty to consult (<span class="caps">DTC</span>). The First Nation, which originally made this argument in a joint federal/provincial hearing on October 1, was told<a href="https://acfnchallenge.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/for-immediate-release-energy-and-resource-conservation-board-denies-first-nations-motion-for-adjournment-of-oil-sands-hearing-first-nation-files-with-alberta-court-of-appeals/"> the panel did not have jurisdiction to hear constitutional questions</a>.</p>
<div>
When the <span class="caps">ACFN</span> applied for an adjournment, in that case,<a href="https://acfnchallenge.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/for-immediate-release-energy-and-resource-conservation-board-denies-first-nations-motion-for-adjournment-of-oil-sands-hearing-first-nation-files-with-alberta-court-of-appeals/"> their request was denied</a>. In response the First Nation is <a href="https://acfnchallenge.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/for-immediate-release-energy-and-resource-conservation-board-denies-first-nations-motion-for-adjournment-of-oil-sands-hearing-first-nation-files-with-alberta-court-of-appeals/">claiming</a> they have “no other option but to file legal arguments for the protection of their constitutionally protected rights through the Alberta Court of Appeal.” </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The government’s refusal to consider the <span class="caps">ACFN</span>’s best defense against the megaproject, which will increase Shell’s tar sands bitumen mining capacity in this one project alone by <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/01/first-nation-challenge-shell-canada-s-jackpine-mine-expansion-citing-constitutional-treaty-rights">100,000 barrels per day</a>, appears out of step with the federal government’s own admission that they must <a href="http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Aboriginal+rights+could+require+pipeline+industry+change+abandon+projects/7520398/story.html">accommodate the rights of First Nations</a> when considering industrial projects that entail irreversible impacts.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
First Nations rights, especially as defined in the 1982 Constitution and subsequent court decisions, <a href="http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Aboriginal+rights+could+require+pipeline+industry+change+abandon+projects/7520398/story.html">must be accommodated</a>, according to an<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/112602747/Accommodation-First-Nations-on-projects"> internal federal discussion paper</a>, released to Greenpeace Canada’s climate and energy campaigner Keith Stewart through access to information legislation.</div>
<!--break-->
<div>
</div>
<div>
“Accommodation can vary from: adjusting an activity or process to abandoning a project, to placing terms and conditions on any permits or authorizations,” said the paper, which was <a href="http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Aboriginal+rights+could+require+pipeline+industry+change+abandon+projects/7520398/story.html">presented in a December 2011 meeting in Calgary with the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association</a>, an oil and gas industry lobby group.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
In addition <a href="http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Aboriginal+rights+could+require+pipeline+industry+change+abandon+projects/7520398/story.html">the government acknowledged “the duty to consult</a> and accommodate (<span class="caps">DTC</span>) is part of a process of fair dealing and reconciliation which flows from…the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Crown’s duty to deal honourably with Aboriginal peoples.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
According to <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/112602747/Accommodation-First-Nations-on-projects">the document</a> “the <span class="caps">DTC</span> is designed to prevent irreversible harm to aboriginal interests prior to negotiated settlements and to manage ongoing relationships with treaty groups in a way that upholds the honour of the Crown.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
In consideration of the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/01/first-nation-challenge-shell-canada-s-jackpine-mine-expansion-citing-constitutional-treaty-rights">Jackpine Mine expansion</a>, the federal government failed to adequately consult the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation or to consider the irreversible impacts that might result from the enormity of the project. The loss of territory, violation of a watershed, or destruction of animal habitat can each be considered a violation of constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights if the land, water or species are considered culturally significant or essential to the traditional practices of the tribe.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
But when the <span class="caps">ACFN</span> brought these concerns to the hearing, they were told such matters were <a href="https://acfnchallenge.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/for-immediate-release-energy-and-resource-conservation-board-denies-first-nations-motion-for-adjournment-of-oil-sands-hearing-first-nation-files-with-alberta-court-of-appeals/">beyond the jurisdiction of the panel</a>. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
“We must take our case to the Alberta Court of Appeal,” <a href="https://acfnchallenge.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/for-immediate-release-energy-and-resource-conservation-board-denies-first-nations-motion-for-adjournment-of-oil-sands-hearing-first-nation-files-with-alberta-court-of-appeals/">stated Chief Allan Adam</a>. “The impacts of this project will have on our lands and rights is not fully understood or adequately addressed by the Crown. At this point we have exhausted all avenues to have the adequacy of Crown consultation addressed by the Panel and we have been left with no other choice but to take this to the courts.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The <span class="caps">AFCN</span> is concerned “irreparable harm” may occur if the hearing proceeds without considering the constitutional questions. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
“The government has made it incredibly difficult for us to access avenues to adequately protect our lands and rights,” <a href="https://acfnchallenge.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/for-immediate-release-energy-and-resource-conservation-board-denies-first-nations-motion-for-adjournment-of-oil-sands-hearing-first-nation-files-with-alberta-court-of-appeals/">said Adam</a>. “We are very concerned that Alberta has delegated consultation to the proponent Shell and we want the adequacy of Crown consultation assessed.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Aboriginal+rights+could+require+pipeline+industry+change+abandon+projects/7520398/story.html">Greenpeace Canada’s Keith Stewart says </a>the newly-released internal document demonstrates the seriousness of the Crown’s legal obligation to First Nations. Projects like the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline could be rejected by the federal government on the basis that more than 100 First Nations cite concerns ‘irreparable’ damage <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/crucial-pipelines-jeopardized-by-failure-to-consult-first-nations-prentice-warns/article4572255/">may violate their rights</a>.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Referring to sweeping <a href="https://acfnchallenge.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/for-immediate-release-first-nation-concerned-bill-c-45-allows-tar-sands-industry-to-destroy-vital-waterways-and-treaty-rights/">changes made to environmental assessment and review legislation</a> in the Omnibus budget Bill C-38,<a href="http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Aboriginal+rights+could+require+pipeline+industry+change+abandon+projects/7520398/story.html"> Stewart commented</a>, “this government can rewrite environmental laws but it can’t rewrite the constitution.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The <span class="caps">ACFN</span> will make their appeal in an Edmonton court today, while a September 2011 claim the First Nation made against Shell for failures to uphold agreements in 2003 and 2006 remains in legal limbo, with no date set for hearings. In this 2011 case the <span class="caps">ACFN</span> argues Shell did not adequately mitigate the impacts of pre-existing projects. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The First Nation hopes today’s appeal will result in an independent review of the Crown’s consultation. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<em>Photo Credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kk/6880115375/in/set-72157629270319399/">Kris Krug</a></em></div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1268">shell</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7242">Shell Canada</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10696">Jackpine Mine</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4389">Enbridge</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5534">Northern Gateway Pipeline</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7519">Canadian Energy Pipeline Association</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4434">oil and gas lobby</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10953">Omnibus Budget Bill C-38</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10366">Jackpine Mine Expansion</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10769">Keith Stewart</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5435">Greenpeace Canada</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10923">access to information</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10939">Constitutionally Protected Rights</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6977">Aboriginal Rights</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10940">Constitution 1982</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10941">Constitution Act</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10354">Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10364">ACFN</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10942">Joint Review Panel</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10943">Jackpine Mine Hearing</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10944">internal documents</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9104">Federal government</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8119">Harper Government</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2323">canadian government</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10945">Duty to Consult</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10946">Accommodate</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10947">irreversible harm</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10948">open pit mining</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2632">tar sands</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/oil-sands">oil sands</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10949">Alberta Court of Appeal</a></div></div></div>Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:01:00 +0000Carol Linnitt6646 at http://www.desmogblog.comThe Case for a Ban on Gas Fracking: Food and Water Watch Reporthttp://www.desmogblog.com/case-ban-gas-fracking-food-and-water-watch-report
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/Screen%20shot%202011-06-16%20at%207.30.04%20PM.png?itok=YF-qTVlS" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">
<p>Last month, DeSmogBlog released <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/fracking-the-future/">Fracking the Future</a>, an in-depth report on the threats posed by unconventional gas drilling and the efforts of the gas industry to limit state and federal oversight of the process. A review of independent scientific research showed that under no conditions can unconventional gas drilling be considered safe, nor can the oil and gas industry’s army of <span class="caps">PR</span> front groups and apolgists be trusted to give an accurate portrayal of the true risks associated with the fracked gas boom.<br /><br /> The report concluded that current state oversight is inadequate to hold the rapidly growing gas industry accountable and, given the dangers associated with unconventional gas production, an immediate moratorium on hydraulic fracturing is necessary and overdue.</p>
<p>In its new report, the nonprofit <a href="http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/">Food and Water Watch</a> renewed these claims, calling for a reinstatement of federal statutes like the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act over unconventional drilling and, more forcefully, calling for a nationwide fracking ban. </p>
<p>Entitled <a href="http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/frackingReport.pdf ">The Case for a Ban on Gas Fracking</a>, the new report details the rapid growth of the risky unconventional gas fracking frenzy gaining momentum across the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> In the four-year span from 2004 to 2008, gas wells in America increased by 41 percent, to over 52,000. This steady increase of drilling across the country is accompanied by an unsettling encroachment of gas wells into residential areas. The report cites Pennsylvania as an example, where over 3000 unconventional wells and future well sites sit within two miles of 320 day care centers, 67 schools, and 9 hospitals. <!--break--></p>
<p>The report finds that despite industry suggestions to the contrary, fracking is inherently dangerous. The opportunity for irreparable damage to drinking water supplies, air quality and human health presents itself at nearly every stage of the process. </p>
<p>Food and Water Watch catalogues numerous well-documented instances of air pollution, water contamination and negative effects on human health due to fracking operations. Some of the worst dangers are associated with the heavy chemicals used throughout the process and toxic wastewater, which post-fracking is laced with additional toxic contaminants from the underlying rock. The report details how nearly no water treatment facilities can cope with the billions of gallons of wastes produced in the process.</p>
<p>Compounding the hazards associated with fracking are the underfunded, overextended and often industry-friendly state enforcement agencies. Even where existing laws were updated to more effectively reflect the risks associated with unconventional drilling, there is little to indicate that state regulators are prepared to monitor and enforce these laws adequately. </p>
<p>States stand to profit too much by maintaining the current backslapping culture of industry appeasement. The report draws on the connection between state revenue and insufficient regulation. In Pennsylvania, for example, where $1.1 billion in gas drilling related revenue accrued between 2006 and 2011, officials are twice as likely to issue warnings than impose fines. Officials often have the conflicted responsibility of both fostering and moderating the industry.</p>
<p>Beyond the state level, there is significant pressure to limit federal oversight. Although a growing consensus is rallying for the restoration of federal environmental statutes like the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act over unconventional drilling, little progress has been made on this issue. The report outlines how industry lobbying has steadily increased, combatting measures to protect public health and safety. The fracking moratorium in New York, for example, has caused a surge of lobbying activity, over $1.2 million dollars worth in 2010 alone.</p>
<p>Despite the reticence of lawmakers on the issue, Food and Water Watch lists ten studies and investigations from the last 18 months, each of which point to the dangers associated with fracking, especially to human health, and the inability of officials to capably monitor the process. While officials levied several injunctions against drilling companies, the report notes that because of weak oversight, nearby communities remain vulnerable.</p>
<p>The rush to produce unconventional gas is putting the public at an unacceptable risk, the report concludes. A nationwide ban on fracking is the only measure that can truly secure public air and water against industry contamination.</p>
<p>Read the full report, <a href="http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/the-case-for-a-ban-on-gas-fracking/">The Case for a Ban on Gas Fracking</a>. </p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/911">new york</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1226">clean air act</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2625">pennsylvania</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2800">natural gas</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4434">oil and gas lobby</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5930">fracking moratorium</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6039">air pollution</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6146">Safe Drinking Water Act</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6344">unconventional gas</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6433">fracking the future</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6635">Water Contamination</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6666">Food and Water Watch</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6667">A Case for a Ban on Gas Fracking</a></div></div></div>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:15:00 +0000Carol Linnitt5438 at http://www.desmogblog.comClimate Lobbyists Overwhelming Washingtonhttp://www.desmogblog.com/climate-lobbyists-overwhelming-washington
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/oil%20spewing.jpg?itok=PCsmkuCG" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>A total of 1,150 different companies and advocacy organizations have participated so far this year in lobbying Congres on climate change, an increase of more than 30 per cent this year alone.</p>
<p>According to records compiled by the <a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/climate_change/articles/entry/1608/">Center for Public Integrity</a>, energy interests and heavy industry led the charge, with agri-business coming in with a huge new push to protect or promote the (highly debatable) benefits of biofuels.</p>
<p>The Centre for Public Integrity couldn’t attach a dollar figure to the over all lobbying effort, but the <a href="http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewContent.act?tag=3.5721%3Ficx_id=D98T9VH00">Associated Press had already reported</a> that oil and gas lobbyists had spent $44.5 million in lobbying in the first quarter alone - a rate of spending that will shatter last year’s record-breaking annual total of $129 million. (Even <em>that</em> number was up 73 per cent over the previous two years.)</p>
<p><!--break--></p>
<p>Facing legions of lobbyists at work and a faked public outcry at home (<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/oil-lobbys-%E2%80%98energy-citizens%E2%80%99-astroturf-campaign-exposed-launch">see next story</a>), is it any wonder that <span class="caps">U.S.</span> legislators have watered down legislation - or simply failed to react to the risks of climate change? They can’t hear the scientists over the self-interested and highly choreographed shouting.</p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1278">Associated Press</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4433">Center for Public Integrity</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4434">oil and gas lobby</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4435">agriculture lobby</a></div></div></div>Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:46:40 +0000Richard Littlemore4012 at http://www.desmogblog.com